LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 05.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]

Sat Aug 5 18:55:25 UTC 2000

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 05.AUG.2000 (02) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
  =======================================================================

From: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

> From: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> To: LOWLANDS-L at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (01) [E]
R.F.Hahn wrote....
> In contrast, the Mongolian Republic, which had been using a
Cyrillic-based
> standard orthography for a Modern-Khalkha-dialect-based standard language

> since 1941, is now in the process of switching back to the
> vertical-script-based orthography,
I can confirm this. When I visited Mongolia in 1997 English speaking
intellectuals I met were all very proud of the original script to which
they
were reverting. While theatrical posters, shop names, and such maintained
the modified Cyrillic I'm sure this will eventually disappear even though
it
is a more efficient form of writing.
Cyrilic is actually the ideal alphabet for languages such as Gaelic that
are
pronounced differently from the way they are written. Dare I say it could
even be the way to go for Lowland Scots?

Regards
Tom
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
"Oh wid some power the Giftie gie us
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us"
Robert Burns--

----------

From: Thomas [t.mcrae at uq.net.au]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]

> From: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (02) [E/S]
Andy Eagle wrote....
> "Thir wha are left are washin the dishes." isna Scots.
>
> Hou wad ye pit ower 'thaim that's' in the plural?
Weel ah'd say 'the yins thah're left ur washin the dishes.' Bad grammar's
bad grammar an tryin tae git oot o this bi sayin it's the wey we tok isnae
oan. We nivver yaised this IS stuff in Edinburgh, only startit findin it
when Ye goat aboot five miles oot the toon. Ye havnae tried tae defend the
awfie THEY bit eethur. 'Is They a sossidge?' oar when sumbuddy luiks at a
tree an saiz 'Oh luik at THEY' Awfy stuff!

Regards
Tom
Tom Mc Rae
Brisbane Australia
"Oh wid some power the Giftie gie us
Tae see oorselves as ithers see us"
Robert Burns--

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Standardization" LOWLANDS-L, 04.AUG.2000 (01) [E]

Ian hef schreven:
>
>> And for people who have no idea how to write their language of
>> course. If you can get these people to use it, you'd have a user base.
>
>Well, absolutely. It is nigh impossible to teach even the most willing
>learner to write your language if you have no standard to go on!
>
That's the big problem with Low-Saxon. Nobody writes it, because nobody
knows how (with nobody I mean most people). And if nobody writes it,
it'll get less and less status in speech as well, because people only see
Dutch.

When I speak to my little brother offline, we always speak Low-Saxon, we
only use Dutch to sound silly (!). But when we meet online, we use Dutch to

communicate. Simply because we're not used to anything else. If there were
only a few guidelines, we'd never even have thought of writing in Dutch.
But
since there aren't any (other than "dialectised" Dutch guidelines), nobody
writes in Low-Saxon and therefore there is hardly any new literature.
Maybe I'll have to write that book I had in mind *LOL*

>Yes, well if I may say so, you seem like one of these all too rare
>people who is interested in action rather than words! I see no reason
>you shouldn't do basically what I did. Two years ago I got in touch
>with a few people I knew and set up an e-mail group with seven of us
>to discuss Ulster-Scots. They got in touch with contacts on other
>lists they were on, I got in contact with mine, and now we have an
>automated list of nearly 200 and a fully-fledged website to accompany
>it - all entirely voluntary, but quite effective. You need to do this,
>but with the express intention that people would contribute short
>stories or articles to such a list (or even a website) in Low Saxon in
>the knowledge that their writing system would be assessed and that the
>ultimate aim would be guidelines for a written standard, which you
>could also discuss between you - in other words, you would need
>members prepared to adapt their own writing systems for the sake of
>the ultimate goal.
>
That's what I was thinking about. Actually, that's what I've been acting
on.
I found eGroups.com, which lets you set up a mailing list like this, and
a few other things, like a calendar, a database and a polling system. Quite

nice, if I may say so. Also I'm working on a website, which for the time
being will probably be just a skeleton, waiting to be filled.

>This requires no technical skills at all, incidentally. You simply
>receive the mails and forward them to the members of the group (you
>should be able to set up groups on your e-mail software so that you
>can just type in the group name).
>
I'm a software engineer / web developer, I think I have enough skills ;)

>Of course, part of the point of lists such as LOWLANDS-L is to assist
>with such projects, so you can always keep in touch with us for ideas!
>
If anybody has any ideas, other than what I've mentioned above, please
let me know. I'm trying to get this into swing now, so anything useful will

be appreciated.

En Ron hef schreven:
>
>Theoretically speaking, planning of a general, standard Low Saxon (Low
German)
>orthography should take into consideration the close genealogical link
that
>exists between Low Saxon and Dutch (which is closer than the one between
Low
>Saxon and German)
>
Don't let our German friends hear it Ron...

> In fact, medieval and early post-medieval
>Low Saxon and Dutch texts utilize very similar spelling systems.  If we
follow
>through with this line of reasoning, we would have to conclude that Low
Saxon
>and Dutch spelling should share the same basic principles.  If this is
>desirable is another question.  We can argue (1) that Dutch spelling has
gone
>down the French way in more recent times (e.g., _eu_ [ø:], _uu_ [y:], the
>latter of which necessitated the peculiar invention _oe_ [u(:)]), perhaps
in a
>deliberate move away from German spelling, and (2) that there is a desire
>among at least some Low Saxon speakers of the Netherlands to retain and
>emphasize a demarkation line between their language and the predominant
Dutch
>language.
>
I share that desire. I think Dutch is the awkward child in the family, by
using
"oe", "uu" and "eu" the way they do. I'd rather use "uu", "üü"/"uy" and
"öö"/"oe" respectively.

  On top of it, making Low Saxon (Low German) speakers in Germany,
>thus the majority of speakers, adopt a Dutch-like system would stand
hardly
>any chance (especially _z_ [z] < _z_ [ts], _eu_ [ø:] < _eu_ [oI], _uu_
[y:] <
>_uu_ [u:], _oe_ [u(:)] < _oe_ [ø:] ~ [œ:], which in German Low Saxon are
now
>written as _s_, _ö(ö)_, _ü(ü)_ and _u(u)_ respectively).  Many of the
>German-based devices used for Low Saxon in Germany would probably be
>unacceptable to speakers in the Netherlands, especially the wretched rule
of
>using an "h" as a lengthening sign in words that have German cognates with

>this device.
>
I'm not so sure about that, you remember my spelling? I already used the
"h"
myself, until you told me that was a High-German thing. The use of "ö" is
already accepted here, we use it ourselves, although I'd rather use "oe",
but
that is a little bit confusing sometimes, for Dutch-minded people. "ü" and
"u"
could probably be accepted here, but that would need a little pushing I
think.
Just a little though, it's just a matter of presenting people with an
alternative.
I think if you point out why not to use the Dutch "oe", "uu" and "eu",
people
will be likely to switch.

>So, what to do?  Perhaps one possibility would be to base a new Low Saxon
>orthography on early, pre-Neerlandization (pre-French-influence) and
>pre-Germanization principles, i.e., roughly pre-17th-century ones.  If so,
I
>would suggest that only the basic *principles* be used, not the
>inconsistencies and other flaws we find in early texts.  What do others
think
>about this?
>
That would be what I'd like to see. But would it result in a system that
people
could still accept. Wouldn't Germans write it off as being too Dutch, and
Dutchmen as it being too old-fashioned? I already kinda "stole" the use of
"uy"
from your Leeglands Schriivwiis, because I like the neutrality of it (not
Dutch
"uu" or German "üü"). But on the other hand, I don't really like "ii", it
looks
weird to me. How did you come to that?

grooten,
Henry

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Etymology

Henry,

You wrote:

> >Theoretically speaking, planning of a general, standard Low Saxon (Low
German)
> >orthography should take into consideration the close genealogical link
that
> >exists between Low Saxon and Dutch (which is closer than the one between
Low
> >Saxon and German)
> >
> Don't let our German friends hear it Ron...

Och, Henry!  I hope you don't seriously think I care if they do or don't.
I left tribalism back on the shore of my native pseudo-continent Europe.
Netherlands?  Northern Germany?  Hey!  They are just arbitrarily separated
parts of my native cultural and linguistic homeland.

> I already kinda "stole" the use of "uy"
> from your Leeglands Schriivwiis, because I like the neutrality of it (not
Dutch
> "uu" or German "üü").

Steal away!  In my private spelling I use _uy_ only for the *long* /ü/,
_ue_ for the short one.  I use _oe_ for the *short* /ö/, _oy_ for the
diphthong /öü/, which is pronounced as [OI] in the Low Elbe dialects and
[œY] (similar to Dutch _ui_) in most others.  For the low monophthong I use
_eu_ as in Dutch, but I'd be willing to reconsider that.

Thus, ...

fuy(e)r (Füür ~ Füer) [fy:A] 'fire'
kot (kott) [kOt] ~ kort (kort) [kOAt] 'short'
koetter (kötter) ['kœtA] ~ koerter (körter) ['kœAtA] 'shorter'
put (Putt) [pUt] ~ pot (Pott) [pOt] 'pot'
puet (Pütt) [pYt] ~ poet (Pött) [pœt]  'pots'
droyg' (dröög) [drœ.YG] ~ [drOIC] 'dry'
euver (över) ['?ø:vA] ~ ['?œ:vA] 'over'
weik (week) [vEIk] ~ [vAIk] 'soft'
weg (Weg(g)) [vEC] 'way'
weeg' (Weeg) [ve:.G] ~ [vE:.G] ~ wege (Wege) [ve:ge] ~ [vE:ge] 'ways'

> But on the other hand, I don't really like "ii", it looks
> weird to me. How did you come to that?

Simple: Logic and consistency.  The convention is to write long vowels
*double*.  Right?  (In most Lowlandic systems they are written double in
closed syllables and single in open syllables; thus e.g., _Klöön_ 'chat' vs
_klönen_ 'to chat'.  An exception is the writing system of the _Loccumer
Richtlinien_, mostly used by church people, that, like North Frisian,
writes long vowels double in all cases.)  So we get ...

aa
oo
uu
ee
öö
üü
but ...
ie !

... where _ii_ would be consistent with the rest.  It is also used in North
Frisian (Germany) where it is fully accepted.  Henry, this is where Dutch
got _ij_ (< _ii_, which used to be pronounced [i:] before the
diphthongization shift)!  So, I see nothing wrong with _ii_, strange though
it may seem at first sight.  The spelling _ie_ is *German- and
Dutch-specific*.  Do you *have* to follow those two?

And there is another benefit to _ii_: the spelling _ie_ can then be used
for the sequence /ie/, as in _Belgien_ ['bElgiEn] 'Spain'.  In the current
systems, _ie_ stands for *both* /i:/ and /ie/, e.g., _Kanienken_
[ka'ni:nkEn] 'rabbit' vs _Belgien_ ['bElgiEn] (not *['bElgi:n]) 'Spain'.
Some Low Saxon writers in the Netherlands borrow the extra letter _ë_ from
Dutch, thus _België(n)_.  In "my" system, none of this is necessary:
_kaniinken_ vs _Belgien_.

Best regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
  You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
  request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
  as message text from the same account to
  <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  =======================================================================
  * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
  * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
  * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
  * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
    to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
    <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
    type of format, in your submissions
  =======================================================================